1. Since all the three writ petitions, involve a common issue, hence they were heard altogether and are being decided by this composite order.

( I) Writ - A No. - 23873 of 2011

Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 8.4.2011, passed by Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Allahabad Circle Allahabad whereby he has held that the petitioner is not entitled to pension since the Governor has discontinued pension scheme for Government employees with effect from 1.4.2005, and the petitioner having been appointed on 9.8.2005, no pension is payable to him. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Article 370 of Civil Service Article ( hereinafter referred to as "CSR") as applicable in the State of U.P. He has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay pension after counting period of work rendered as Supervisor in work charge establishment, before his regular appointment on 8.8.2005, as Seenchpal.

3. This writ petition was initially dismissed on 25.4.2011, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that under Article 370, CSR, service rendered in work charge, does not qualify for computing qualifying service for pension as also held in Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006 ( 3) ESC 2428 and State of U.P. v. Ram Pratap Shukla, 2008 ( 3) ESC 2123 and the petitioner was not entitled to compute his services rendered in work charge establishment for the purpose of pension. The Court did not address itself to the issue of validity of Article 370 CSR.

4. The petitioner thereafter preferred an intra Court appeal, i.e., Special Appeal No. 899 of 2011 which was partly allowed and disposed of vide order dated 11.7.2011 as follows:

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2011, whereby the petitioner's claim that his services as work-charged employee should be considered for the purpose of pension has been rejected.

After considering the impugned judgment, we really do not find that the findings suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting our interference. Those findings are confirmed. However, learned Counsel for the appellant points out to us that there a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, AIR 2010 SC 1467 , wherein a provision for excluding the period of service for work-charged employee for the purpose of pension has been struck down by the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court and the SLP against the said order has been dismissed was considered.

Considering the above, to that extent, we partly allow this appeal and set aside the order, and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge, to enable the petitioner to amend the petition, if so advised to challenge the relevant rule. We make it clear that, on the matter being remanded, the challenge will be limited to the vires of Rule 370 of the Civil Services Articles as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

If the petitioner applies for amendment, within four weeks from today, then the same shall be considered according to law.

The appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of accordingly.

( emphasis added)

5. Thus the Court remanded the matter only to the extent of consideration by this Court about vires of Article 370 of CSR, as applicable in UP. After remand, the petitioner came up with an amendment application No. 206282 of 2011 which was allowed on 10.10.2011 as a result whereof grounds No. ( e), ( f), ( g) and prayer No. ( v) ought to have been incorporated in the writ petition. While carrying out amendment, the petitioner though has incorporated prayer No. ( v) but grounds ( e), ( f) and ( g), allowed to be incorporated in the writ petition, have not actually been added and the amendment to that extent has not been carried out. Today, whe